Exodus 4:24-26

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
On the journey, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord came upon Moses and would have killed him.
But Zipporah took a piece of flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and, touching his person, she said, “You are a spouse of blood to me.”
Then God let Moses go. At that time she said, “A spouse of blood,” in regard to the circumcision.
Why was God angry with Moses? Dose it have something to do with the killing of the first-borns?
 
Hi Ted,

This is a passage that commentators have trouble interpreting. We can however get the general trend of it. God was displeased because Moses (who had been brought up by Egyptians) was not circumcised. His wife performed a sort of symbolic circumcision on him and God accepted this.

Verbum
 
Why was God angry with Moses? Dose it have something to do with the killing of the first-borns?
From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 24. The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son: which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go. (Challoner) — Both his children were born about this time. But Eliezer, the younger, had not been circumcised; and therefore remained under the power of the destroying angel. (Origen, contra Cels. v.) Others think the angel was going to kill Moses. (Calmet)

Ver. 25. Stone, like a flint. Such stones are very common in Egypt, and are used by the embalmers to open the side of the deceased. The Galli priests make themselves eunuchs without danger, by means of sharp stones. (Pliny, Natural History xxxv. 12.) Josue circumcises with the like, Josue v. But any instrument will suffice. (Calmet) — Sephora seized the first thing that came in her way, to save the life of her husband, with whom God was displeased for this neglect of complying with the law, whatever might be his pretext. It was not fit that he should be a legislator, who was not a pattern of obedience. (Tirinus) — Spouse. I have redeemed thee from destruction, by shedding the blood of my son; therefore I will deem this a ratification of our marriage. Never forget our union, which costs me so much, and which has placed you in such imminent danger. The Hebrew mothers style their newly circumcised infants bloody spouses, in imitation of Sephora, who on this occasion perhaps addresses the words to Eliezer. The Septuagint read, “Sephora…fell at his feet, and said, the blood of my son’s circumcision has ceased to flow,” &c., which is not very easy to understand.
 
40.png
Verbum:
This is a passage that commentators have trouble interpreting. We can however get the general trend of it. God was displeased because Moses (who had been brought up by Egyptians) was not circumcised. His wife performed a sort of symbolic circumcision on him and God accepted this.
Just a little clarification - Moses was kept by his parents for 3 months after his birth before being left in the river and found by Pharaohs daughter. He was circumcised on the 8th day after his birth (remember, Pharaohs daughter knew he was one of the Hebrew children). However, he did not circumcise his son, which was a command God gave Abraham, and was a sign of His covenant with Abraham and his seed. The circumcision by his wife was not symbolic, nor was it done to Moses. She actually circumcised their son!
 
Just a little clarification - Moses was kept by his parents for 3 months after his birth before being left in the river and found by Pharaohs daughter. He was circumcised on the 8th day after his birth (remember, Pharaohs daughter knew he was one of the Hebrew children). However, he did not circumcise his son, which was a command God gave Abraham, and was a sign of His covenant with Abraham and his seed. The circumcision by his wife was not symbolic, nor was it done to Moses. She actually circumcised their son!
But why did she call Moses a Spouse of Blood?
 
40.png
CHRISTINE77:
But why did she call Moses a Spouse of Blood?
I would guess because circumcision is a bloody procedure, and she had to perform it on her own son (this was supposed to be done by Moses). For an explanation beyond that, I would recommend you go over the information already provided by tobinatorstark.
 
But why did she call Moses a Spouse of Blood?
Hmm. I always just took this as an angry remark by a wife who resented having to do something she thought her husband really should have taken care of!

However – theologically –

I don’t believe she was born a Jew, but by carrying out the circumcision she had joined herself to the covenant (which is a covenant sealed in blood, as the Sinai covenant would be and as of course the New Covenant is). In effect she has become Jewish (as Ruth did, but not the wives of Solomon, for example).
 
Why was God angry with Moses? Dose it have something to do with the killing of the first-borns?
Israel is God’s first-born, His pride and joy. Israel is called out of Egypt to show the other nations the way to live as His children. But Israel - and its leader - must be righteous before it can preach righteousness to the other nations. That is what’s going on when God tries to kill Moses

God is serious about His covenant, no one can be exempt from its provisions. Moses was in violation of the covenant with Abraham. His son, Gershom, hadn’t been circumcised as God had commanded (see Genesis 17:9-14). Moses’ wife, Zipporah, takes matters into her own hands and performs the circumcision, and Moses’ life is saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top